Academia and bestiality

From Conservapedia

The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University.[1][2] Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity.[3] In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.[4]

Professor PZ Myers on bestiality

Professor PZ Myers, an atheist and evolutionist, wrote about bestiality:

“

So, to answer clueless thick-skulled Christian idiot’s question, I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way[5][6]

”

Professor PZ Myers said, "I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions...".[5] When asked what conditions were acceptable for bestially to be morally acceptable, Myers was silent. [5]

A Christian commented on Myers's statement:

“

If you are sensing that there is something amiss with a person stating he neither supports nor opposes bestiality, then you are more perceptive with regard to moral reasoning than PZ Myers is. Myers once stated his morality is based on feelings of empathy. In an interview he stated, "If I punched you in the face, you would feel bad and I would feel bad ..and that's where morality comes from." Ironically, Myers offers a cartoon that mocks plaintive logic, that is, logic based on feelings, which is exactly the same basis of morality Myers appealed to in his interview.

When I sent Myers an email asking him to clarify what "specific conditions" would make bestiality morally acceptable in his opinion, he declined to address my email and my second article on the subject. There is really only one likely scenario in which it seems Myers would accept bestiality, also known as zoophilia, and that is if it is apparent that the animal is not being harmed and if it is demonstrating some kind of approval, enjoyment or "consent" in the act. The problem for Myers here is quite simple. If nothing must be held sacred, then why should bestiality be considered acceptable only under certain conditions and not always? Why should animal rights be an issue if animal rights are not sacred? These are logical contradictions he needs to address. What is happening here is that Myers is revealing in his quote that he does in fact believe that some boundaries must be held sacred.[5]